Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[Pymes75]

Under Army 2020 plans, Armoured Infantry dismounts are being reduced to 6 per section. What's to say that they wouldn't do the same with Mechanised Infantry if they introduced VBCI Mk II armed with the CT40?

[Gabriele]

The Army is also in the second year of trials for a concept which splits platoons into 4 sections of 6 instead of 3 of 8 men.

But the cost of putting turrets and guns on the MIV would be a problem, whatever happens.

[Pymes75]

g turrets and guns on the MIV would be a probl

True, but I wouldn't put it past the army to have BIG ideas that don't match reality ...they have form (ahem, FRES from the start)!

[Tony Williams]

The Army is also in the second year of trials for a concept which splits platoons into 4 sections of 6 instead of 3 of 8 men.

I heard informally at DSEi that the six-man section idea had been dropped, but I'm reserving judgement until I hear officially.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I heard informally at DSEi that the six-man section idea had been dropped

To combine movement and fires (indirect not be forgotten) effectively, it would be beneficial to have a greater number of IFVs/ APCs in support. Say, to a dozen tanks one and a half dozen. 6 x 18 is just over a hundred dismounts, which sounds about right for ops where the tanks can't be in the fore. On the other hand, dismounting should only happen when it is really needed as it neutralises one of the main strengths of the tanks - their speed. With mounted combat being the main rule (assumption), I would rather have 6 than 8 (or 9) dismounts per wagon as losing several IFVs/ APCs in one go would incur disproportionate casualties
... would be interesting to hear where the experiments that Gaby mentions have been reported?

[Gabriele]

I heard informally at DSEi that the six-man section idea had been dropped

To combine movement and fires (indirect not be forgotten) effectively, it would be beneficial to have a greater number of IFVs/ APCs in support. Say, to a dozen tanks one and a half dozen. 6 x 18 is just over a hundred dismounts, which sounds about right for ops where the tanks can't be in the fore. On the other hand, dismounting should only happen when it is really needed as it neutralises one of the main strengths of the tanks - their speed. With mounted combat being the main rule (assumption), I would rather have 6 than 8 (or 9) dismounts per wagon as losing several IFVs/ APCs in one go would incur disproportionate casualties
... would be interesting to hear where the experiments that Gaby mentions have been reported?

In the Small Arms Corps Journal. The study is not really connected to Warrior losing a seat, but rather to ongoiing attempts to spread the load on the soldiers' backs to ensure that everyone is carrying less weight, in connection to the use of vehicles down to quadbikes to carry part of the stuff.
There is not much in the way of details, anyway.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now that the SV saga seems to have taken the final shape (to 2022 at least), the missing ambulance version has been noted (and so have the potential benefits of a wheeled substitute: height, speed, sufficient x-country mobility...).

For sure, UV will not provide a a bridging version. Not much heard of the Warrior-based, proposed solution since it was announced. Then the talk was of 36. I note that the discrepancy between different degrees of Warrior updates amounts to 80-90 pieces, and the famed (but not much heard of ABSV has been put at 65 pieces)... so maybe we will get the difference as bridge layers, but only about half as many as originally wished for?

With the UV leaning more towards an APC than an IFV a direct fire vehicle seems a rather distant possibility. The Poles have turned an AMV/ Rosomak into one, so not 100% impossible,

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now that the SV saga seems to have taken the final shape (to 2022 at least), the missing ambulance version has been noted (and so have the potential benefits of a wheeled substitute: height, speed, sufficient x-country mobility...)

The answer came quicker than I expected. It is not even from within the UV prgrm (Boxer, at least, would have the height, but is not competing). It is the next prgrm "down" in fightiness - admitted: ambulances don't fight, but protection is still a requirement - that has it:
"The projected requirement is for at least 500 MRV-Ps plus 78 battlefield ambulance variants and 27 armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs)."

[Gabriele]

The projected requirement is for at least 500 MRV-Ps plus 78 battlefield ambulance variants and 27 armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs).

I think the MRV-P ambulance is the replacement for part of old Land Rover and Pinzgauer Ambulances, not for the FV432 Ambulance. The FV432 might be replaced as part of ABSV or, more likely, within the MIV (ex-FRES UV) requirement.

The Army last year also began a search, separate from the MRV-P programme, for a replacement for the old Landie ambulance.

I guess they want a non-protected Landie replacement;
A protected but wheeled and "lightweight" ambulance as part of MRV-P (it was always planned that it would come with an ambulance variant)
And eventually a replacement for FV432 in the armoured medical regiments, although probably it'll be a wheeled 8x8, not a tracked platform.

[ArmChairCivvy]

eventually a replacement for FV432 in the armoured medical regiments, although probably it'll be a wheeled 8x8, not a tracked platform.

That is what I was expecting. However, it could be a 6 x 6 Eagle, if the other variants make it for the bulk of the order (and, let's not forget, in whose stable the Ocelot is these days: lots more of them with simplified construction/ cheaper materials, while keeping the design innovations, and the variants that need more bulk (cubic, inside) from the one and the same provider?).

[Gabriele]

If GD can lower the unitary price of Foxhound, i'm all for going with it rather than introduce yet another separate fleet. But so far, the Foxhound is quite damn pricey, it has to get cheaper to be workable.

[Tony Williams]

If GD can lower the unitary price of Foxhound, i'm all for going with it rather than introduce yet another separate fleet. But so far, the Foxhound is quite damn pricey, it has to get cheaper to be workable.

I gather that much of the cost is in the advanced materials used. A few months ago the makers were advertising the availability of a cheaper version using steel armour. This offers the same level of protection but with a reduced payload since the steel body is considerably heavier. That might not matter if heavy loads are not envisaged.

They were also talking about something which had previously occurred to me as a good idea: a stretched, long-wheelbase version. This could potentially take an entire section with a high degree of protection while still being much smaller and lighter than the huge MRAPs.

[shark bait]

I think its true the cost of the foxhounds are prohibitive, but there should be a big effort to maintain commonality.

The army has SCOUT-UV, MRV-P, ABSV and challenger LEP as well as the marines after a new vehicle, whilst finishing off Ajax and warrior. Something surely has to give there right?

[bobp]

I hope the Chancellor allows his purse to open to pay for these programs.

[Dahedd]

If the RM are looking for a new ride as well then it surely makes sense that whatever 8x8 is selected for the Army should be amphibious when not up armoured with rpg screens etc. commonality across the services.

[arfah]

................

[shark bait]

If the RM are looking for a new ride as well then it surely makes sense that whatever 8x8 is selected for the Army should be amphibious when not up armoured with rpg screens etc. commonality across the services.

Those are my thoughts exactly

The Royal Marines are not looking for an armoured vehicle.
They are looking for an amphibious over-snow General service vehicle to replace the BV206.

They are indeed, but perhaps they could repoint their sights for the benifits for both services.

[arfah]

..............

[Gabriele]

If the RM are looking for a new ride as well then it surely makes sense that whatever 8x8 is selected for the Army should be amphibious when not up armoured with rpg screens etc. commonality across the services.

The Royal Marines are not looking for an armoured vehicle.
They are looking for an amphibious over-snow General service vehicle to replace the BV206.

As a matter of fact, the Royal Marines ARE looking for an armoured vehicle, just not of the 8x8 kind. The BV206 currently offers no protection, but the ATV(S) that they are trying to buy (this is the second attempt, the notice was already put out in 2008 and then had to be dropped) is required to be armored as well as amphibious. Unless this requirement is dropped, a purchase of more Vikings is more likely that any purchase of the new, unprotected Beowulf. Unless part of the Beowulf payload capability is used up by providing protection, as BAE itself acknowledged:

The vehicle touted here by BAE is unarmored, but Akser conceded that a certain degree of armored protection would be required to meet the emerging British requirement.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /72340210/


That said, the Royal Marines could certainly benefit from a more "fighty" fleet of amphibious 8x8, with the Viking moved onto the supporting role... it won't be done, but it would make sense.

[ArmChairCivvy]

RM have a long-standing requirement for over-snow capability (at which the 8x8s would not excel).

http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/ ... 496984.jpg
No reason why even unarmoured such vehicles could not be fighty.
- RM have mortars on their BVs
- other armies have put heavier ones (120mm) and even direct fire weapons (TOWs) on them.

[arfah]

...............

[downsizer]

The talk of 8x8 APC's is bollocks.

Since when does that matter? 76% of the posts on here are utter bollocks. 34% of posters know that.

[Ron5]

I'm always right, 80% of the time.

Speaking of which, isn't the myth of the extreme cost of Foxhound based on somebody with a calculator dividing the original contract (which included a bunch of additional stuff) by the number of vehicles? A technique that has proved its worthlessness many, many times over.

And yes, the Foxhound composite armor made in the US, is a lot more expensive than steel as Tony noted. And yes, all military equipment is very expensive.

I laughed myself silly at some of the price guessing for 8 wheel APC's and JLTV I've read here. A fully equipped JLTV complete with with a share of development cost for less than a quarter of a million bucks? Gimme a break. For one equipped to foxhound combat standard, I'd be closer if I increased that guess by an order of magnitude.

[The Armchair Soldier]

UK Explores Stryker Vehicle Platform at US Exercise

Elements of the Scots Guards are exploring possible UK applications for the Stryker wheeled vehicle, with demonstrations under way as part of the US Army-sponsored combined Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) 16.1, Army Warfighting Assessment (AWA), and 'Bold Quest 2015.2' events.

According to Brigadier General Terry McKenrick, commanding general of the US Army's Brigade Modernization Command, a company of Scots Guards "came in early for the exercise and went through several weeks of training on our Stryker platform. So they are loaded on Strykers for the exercise."

Read More: http://www.janes.com/article/54803/uk-e ... s-exercise

[Old RN]

Just a thought. OMC in South Africa (a BAE company) is building Patrias as "Honey Badgers" to replace the SA Army's Ratels. Would the BAE involvement help them in the UK programme?